On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump may remove Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause while her legal challenge to the termination proceeds.
Link to Supreme Court Stay on FTC Commissioner’s Removal Supreme Court Stay on FTC Commissioner’s Removal
In a 6–3 decision, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay, temporarily blocking rulings from the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that had ordered her reinstatement. As we previously discussed, both courts had ruled that Slaughter’s removal was unlawful under Humphrey’s Executor, which held that Congress could limit the president’s removal power by providing for-cause protections for commissioners at independent agencies such as the FTC.
In addition to granting the stay, the Court also agreed to take up the case and will now hear arguments in December 2025 on two questions: (1) whether the statutory removal protections for FTC commissioners violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether the long-standing precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor “should be overruled” and (2) “whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office.”
Link to Humphrey’s Executor Precedent and Separation of Powers Humphrey’s Executor Precedent and Separation of Powers
Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasized that Humphrey’s Executor remains binding law unless and until it is overturned. The dissent cautioned that the majority’s ruling allows the president to remove any member of an independent agency “for any reason or no reason at all,” potentially extinguishing the agencies’ independence and bipartisanship, which Congress sought to preserve. Kagan also criticized the use of the Court’s emergency docket to suspend protections still in force under binding precedent.
The Court’s decision to hear the case continues a trend in which the Court has permitted the president to remove officials at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and other independent agencies, despite statutory for-cause protections.
Link to Implications for Independent Agencies and Presidential Authority Implications for Independent Agencies and Presidential Authority
Looking ahead, the Court’s upcoming decision could have sweeping implications for the structure of independent agencies and the future of congressional limits on presidential removal power. Immediately at stake are the FTC’s removal protections, but the Court’s ruling could also reshape the independence of agencies across the government.
For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here or contact one of the authors. And listen to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show—a Venable podcast.